Nope, not good enough. I pointed you to a tabulation of what scientists were saying in the 1970s. The vast majority of actual published science papers from the 1970s were predicting warming, not cooling. Newsweek, Time, and National Enquirer aren't science journals.

Next time, try reading the links I gave you. You might actually learn something.

Okay kids, let's get out the actual document that Kurt puts forth, and Ned ignores.

It points out how everyone pointed to the magazine articles, rather than the published papers, as Ned does. From that document above:

However, the news coverage of the time doesreflect what New York Times science writer AndrewRevkin calls “the tyranny of the news peg,” based onthe idea that reporters need a “peg” on which to hanga story. Developments that are dramatic or new tendto draw the news media’s attention, Revkin argues,rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussionwithin the scientific community (Revkin 2005). Ahandy peg for climate stories during the 1970s wasthe cold weather.

Also see the "PopularLiterature of the Era" sidebar. And it ends with

In July 1979 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, JuleCharney, one of the pioneers of climate modeling,brought together a panel of experts under the U.S.National Research Council to sort out the state ofthe science. The panel’s work has become iconic as afoundation for the enterprise of climate change studythat followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reportsare a traditional approach within the United Statesfor eliciting expert views on scientific questions ofpolitical and public policy importance (Weart 2003).In this case, the panel concluded that the potentialdamage from greenhouse gases was real and shouldnot be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threatof aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age showsup nowhere in the report.

(Edited to fix that *&%$##@# link.)

Last edited by rabble on Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I cited examples of major mainstream (for the time) magazines hyping the global cooling hysteria. Same as it is now. Same as it will be 10 years from now. "Scientists" don't get extra government funding by letting the world know everything thing is natural and cyclical. They need a "crisis" and the media is more than happy to assist. Case in point, the East Anglia emailgate scandal. Caught at their own game.

If it's such a crisis to you weatherers, give up those items that you feel cause "man-made global warming". C'mon lead by example.

That's pretty instructive. Flanders is, of course, theoretically a Catholic. But subliminally he's absorbed the message that science offers a rational, realistic, productive way of understanding reality, while religions are basically little more than self-delusions and myths.

So when Flanders wants to belittle some particular branch of science, he compares it to religion.

At a gut level, even religious conservatives recognize that comparing something to religion is insulting. That tells you something about how much credibility religion has in the modern world.

That's pretty instructive. Flanders is, of course, theoretically a Catholic. But subliminally he's absorbed the message that science offers a rational, realistic, productive way of understanding reality, while religions are basically little more than self-delusions and myths.

So when Flanders wants to belittle some particular branch of science, he compares it to religion.

At a gut level, even religious conservatives recognize that comparing something to religion is insulting. That tells you something about how much credibility religion has in the modern world.

No darling. Just had to put it into terms and allusions that a simpleton like you could understand.

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

There are a few people left in the US who actually believe in their religion. When their kids get sick, they'll pray for them instead of taking them to the doctor.

You're not one of those people. You know your "religion" is a joke, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it. That's why your silly little anti-science tantrums always involve describing science in religious terms.

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Yep, you did. And as both rabble and I pointed out, that was a red herring.

I don't care if Newsweek or National Enquirer published an article about new ice ages, or sasquatch, or UFOs. If you read the links I gave you, you'd learn that in the 1970s actual scientists were perfectly aware of the greenhouse effect and predicted that the result would be global warming. So far, their predictions are doing pretty well:

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

Cleared of all charges by their peers and proponents.

How very convenient.

Wrong. As usual.

The six major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US).

Unless, that is, you'd like to argue that the U.S. Dept. of Commerce has a stake in a British public research university.